### Table 2. Test cases required to satisfy MC/DC for the CFG in figure 2 according to logic-based approach.

2006

"... In PAGE 13: ... A source-level statement in basic block z is absent because it represents the end of the program. Table2 shows the test cases required to achieve MC/DC for D1 and D2 according to the logic-based method. Table 3 shows a set of test vectors that fulfil these test cases, and also highlights the CFG path traversed on executing the program with the respective test vector.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 2. Test cases required to satisfy MC/DC for the CFG in figure 2 according to logic-based approach.

"... In PAGE 13: ... A source-level statement in basic block z is absent because it represents the end of the program. Table2 shows the test cases required to achieve MC/DC for D1 and D2 according to the logic-based method. Table 3 shows a set of test vectors that fulfil these test cases, and also highlights the CFG path traversed on executing the program with the respective test vector.... ..."

### Table 1: The type-checking rules for the linear logic-based language. for checking recursions was suggested to us by Sam- son Abramsky, and will be justi ed in the next section when we consider the operational semantics of the lan- guage.The rules in Table 1 have a rather di erent form than most type systems: our system corresponds to a sequent-style formulation of linear logic, whereas most type systems correspond to a natural deduction-style formulation [8]. One main di erence between the two styles arises in the form of the rules. In natural de- duction systems, one uses introduction and elimination rules, e.g., the rule

1992

"... In PAGE 3: ... Terms are identi ed up to renaming of bound variables, and syntactic substitution is written M[x := N] [3]. The type-checking rules of the language appear in Table1 , and are essentially those given by Abramsky in [1, 2]. The symbols ? and denote type con- texts, which are lists of pairs x1 : s1; : : :; xn : sn, where each xi is a distinct variable and each si is a type.... ..."

Cited by 23

### TABLE IV CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE SCHOOLS AND THE CLUSTERS PRODUCED BY THE FUZZY LOGIC BASED APPROACH

in Cluster Analysis for the Statistical Modeling of Aesthetic Judgment Data Related to Comics Artists

### Table 5. Comparison of algorithms for formulation (PR) of example 4. Method* Standard

2000

"... In PAGE 20: ...ractional l1k. Since this lower bound is greater than the current upper bound of 68.01, the search stops. Table5 shows the comparison with other algorithms when the problem (9) -(11) is reformulated as the MINLP problem (PR) with the convex hull representation for the disjunctions. Note that the proposed BB algorithm and the standard BB yield the same lower bound (62.... In PAGE 32: ... Comparison of branch and bound methods for example 4. Table5 . Comparison of algorithms for formulation (PR) of example 4.... ..."

Cited by 11

### Tableau Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. 2. U. Endriss, N. Maudet, F. Sadri, and F. Toni. Protocol Conformance for Logic- based Agents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Arti- cial Intelligence (IJCAI-2003). Morgan Kaufmann, 2003. 3. M. Fitting. First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1996. 4. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Desiderata for Inter-agent Protocols. In Proceed- ings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2002), Bologna, Italy, 2002.

2003

Cited by 3

### Tableau Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. 2. U. Endriss, N. Maudet, F. Sadri, and F. Toni. Protocol Conformance for Logic- based Agents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Arti- cial Intelligence (IJCAI-2003). Morgan Kaufmann, 2003. 3. M. Fitting. First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1996. 4. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Desiderata for Inter-agent Protocols. In Proceed- ings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2002), Bologna, Italy, 2002.

2003

Cited by 3

### Table I. Computation times in seconds for minimum cost and minimum makespan problems, using MILP, CP, and logic-based Benders methods. Each time represents the average of 5 instances. Computation was cut off after two hours (7200 seconds), and a + indicates that this occurred for at least one of the five problems.

2004

Cited by 15

### Table 1. Computation times in seconds for minimum cost and minimum makespan problems, using MILP, CP, and logic-based Benders methods. Each time represents the average of 5 instances. Computation was cut off after two hours (7200 seconds), and a + indicates that this occurred for at least one of the five problems.

2004

"... In PAGE 8: ... No precedence constraints were used, which tends to make the scheduling portion of the problem more difficult. Table1 displays computational results for 2, 3 and 4 facilities as the number of tasks increases. The CP solver is consistently faster than MILP, and in fact MILP is not shown for the makespan problems due to its relatively poor performance.... ..."

Cited by 15

### Table II. Computation times in seconds for minimum cost and minimum makespan problems, using MILP, CP, and logic-based Benders methods. Each time represents the average of 5 instances. Computation was cut off after two hours (7200 seconds), and a + indicates that this occurred for at least one of the five problems.

2004

Cited by 15